maslar

There's nothing complicated about it. Unless you want to make it complicated. You either get it or you don't. it looks to me like you actually don't want to get it since as a basic concept it's pretty easy to understand. Once again you try and and attribute sentiments to me that I don't share and have never stated. You claim that that I approve of deception. it's twice now you've done this and to be honest it's getting tiring. For the record (once again) I don't condone stealing or deceiving people. That I should even have to make such statement I find offensive. Your whole argument is pretty lame: To group all bootlegs and counterfeits under the same umbrella -which is what you are doing - and then attaching tags such as thieving and deception to this "group" you have established is ridiculous. When I started buying northern soul records I bought pressings. They cost about £!..00. They were copies. Was I being deceived? Was my money stolen? I knew exactly what I was getting. Your comments about bootlegs again shows you don't really know anything about the subject. That isn't really surprising since the whole bootleg movement was originally associated with rock music or rock/pop in the case of the Beatles. The whole ethos of bootlegs was to make available music that was unavailble and had little chance of ever becoming available. Bootlegs were never about deception or theft. Everyone knew what they were getting and generally they were either distributed freely or at a reasonable low cost. I wouldn't have any qualms about owning a bootleg of my favourite artist or even a misc genre. In fact bootlegs have played a vital role in the way record companies have released music over the last couple of decade. particularly the abundance of anthologies with unreleased tracks, alternate takes , rehearsals and jams. The record companies only did this as a reaction to the bootleg movement. To meet demand. The fact you label these as the same as the production of replicas which are deliberately designed to deceive people and make large sums of money shows a complete lack of understanding.

Id just like to clarify a few points because following all this is interesting - better than the telly atm - but a little confusing. What most people refer to as "boots on the Northern scene are actually what may be referred to as counterfeits in the wider record collecting scene where: Bootlegs are unissued material previously unavailable and possible ambiguous ownership. These are different to Counterfeits - which are reissues (in this case vinyl) of previously released material. from any source or format. Within the sphere of counterfeits there are "reproductions". Would I be right in saying these new records (pressings) contain both bootlegs and counterfeits - and also reproductions. And since the unissued material (bootlegs) and the LP tracks (counterfeits) are easily recognizable as such the main issue is with the reproductions? If this is the case my question is as follows: Are the reproductions (which has been stated are of a high quality) distinguishable from the original? And if so how easily? It seems to me from what I've read that there would be indications that they are not actually originals (eg vinyl instead of styrene).

No it's not a joke.

Just a few random thoughts on the matter: 1 £1000 is a lot of money (in case anyone hadn't realized). 2 These packs are clearly aimed at collectors with an eclectic interest - ranging from jazz , all shades of soul music to disco and funk. Neither are they aimed at collectors wishing to become dealers. Or get rich quick. 3 Even with my limited knowledge of what IL is offering I still have a rough idea of what I would get for my £1000 . I can kind of picture it. 4 I wouldn't buy a pack such as this without asking questions first: while I realise detail is out of the question I'd still want reassurance about the ratio of stuff I was getting and condition. This would be reasonable given the money involved. As a buyer you're entitled to ask as many questions as you like and to get any assurance you require. At the end of the day you can always say - no thanks 5 In terms of satisfaction after receiving I'd want the follows: If I was happy with 250 then that would be my minimum. I'd be ok with that. Ideally I'd expect to be happy with about a half. The rest I could dispose off and not be too upset about it. Any thing over half would be a bonus.

This to me is the true ethos of "bootlegging" - making material available that would otherwise be lost. I wouldn't have any qualms whatsoever about owning this or paying for it.

Well it's obviously not a soul record. But then again neither is it "psych". Not to me anyway. I'd class it more "bubblegum". Sounds like something you might have seen/heard on Eurovision 45 years ago. Not my cup of tea anyway.

Why not say it? It's true. The two Grapevine tracks leave a little to be desired in terms of what could have been. This track shows they could have been much better with a stronger vocal. I like this track but the only (slight) downside (imo) is that the lyric content gives it a slight novelty value that a different lyric would have avoided. Still pretty good though and very worthy of release.

He has put "reissue" in the title. "Re" is a standard abbreviation for re-issue. The fact that anyone buying this record doesn't realise that is neither here nor there. Ebay actually list it as an accepted, standard abbreviation. If someone bought this they couldn't claim they were duped. As far as I can see he hasn't claimed it's an original. The seller hasn't actually done anything wrong. Even the term "rare" is entirely subjective.

From my own record buying the one that stands out is Ral Donner. I bought that "blind" having never heard it before when it came out on Inferno, just because I'd bought the other first four releases. I still can't work it out. What exactly is it? It isn't a soul record. Is it an Elvis "movie period" record? How do you dance to it? Has anyone ever danced to it? Also I think a worthy contender for top spot would be the Casino Classic release of Green Onions. which came out during the mod revival/Quadrophenia era. I think it was by the All-Night band and the label had words to the effect: "This song featured in the film Quadrophenia". It doesn't really get any more cynical than that.

All the shops mentioned in Soho are just ok. It depends what you're looking for. Don't expect to find any "finds" although there's always a slim chance. SOTU on Broadwick Street is currently my fave in that part of London. New soul 7" releases on the counter, second hand downstairs but not a large selection. Ten minutes looking through max. Plus a range of books LPs cds etc

Saw this recently. One of the great protest songs and still 100% relevant today

I'm not sure if this is common knowledge but it's new to me. The French Motown compilation L.P. "The Big, Big Sound From Detroit" released in early 1965 listed all the musicians that played on the tracks in some detail due to the efforts of Kurt Mohr. It seems that with a little probing Motown were willing to provide such information - or maybe they just dropped their guard? https://www.udiscovermusic.com/motown-the-big-big-sounds-little-secret

Reaching For The Best without a doubt. Brilliant up-tempo, uplifting soul music. Not quite in the same league but I've always liked Dancing On The Edge Of A Dream.

The are a couple on popsike and an original (67) Canadian.The two 74 copies don't seem to be the same record since they have different company sleeves. They sold for around 50 -, 58 US dollars. The '67 sold for twenty dollars more.

I have a few questions about the Stephanye label release with regard to originals and bootlegs (more accurately counterfeits in the case of Stephanye). I'm only referring to the three original, genuine releases not those later bootlegs that have no connection to the label. 1 Stamped or scratched matrices: Is the situation similar to Ric-Tic and Golden World where original releases may have either or both? I would assume that the same pressing plants were used so this is likely to be the case? 2 With regard to later reissues: Manship only has one such reissue for sale, Roy Handy, and that's listed as a '73 release of American origin. Were the other two releases also reissued at this time? 3 Was this/(these) reissues authorised, unauthorised or "grey area"? 4 Did it/they have vinyl/moulded labels like the Ric-Tic reissues? I only have one of the three releases, The Prophets. My copy is styrene with a scratched matrix. I always assumed it was original but I'm not 100% sure.

Reminds me of Black Merda (which has the Detroit connection). Then again there were a host of groups creating this type of sound.

I know he was obsessed with Sittin On The Dock Of The Bay when it came out, playing it over and over,

I don't think they would have recorded the whole album there. I think a couple of weeks was looked into so probably two or three tracks. I'm guessing Got To Get You Into My Life would be prime candidate.

Yup all the Beatles were big R&B/soul fans. On the first US tour I think it was Paul who, when asked, gave the Four Tops' Baby I Need Your Loving as his favourite record of the moment, probably before most of the American audience had even heard of the Tops.

Does anyone still wear Brut? I haven't since i was about 17/18 but it still seems popular on the shop shelves at least. Who's buying it?

Yes I agree with everything you say. Seems kind of strange that George may have been one of the first people in the UK to own (in theory at least ) a Ric-Tic demo (or demos). Even if they were standard issues maybe he had the beginning of a small collection/label run.

These look really good and I'm sure a realist price will be established. Even so I don't think the one announced is extortionate. Maybe just a little on the high side. I just hope that buyers don't start splitting these up a la Motown. Each record is a part of the whole package. It's the "wholeness" of the item that gives it it's validity or status as a collectors item. As such whether some of the tracks have been released before is to a large extent irrelevant as long as it's all kept together. (in my opinion).

Fairly big news in Beatles circles surfaced this week with the auctioning of a letter written by George Harrison to Atlanta radio DJ Paul Drew. The letter confirms what was a previously a strong rumour - that the Beatles had planned or seriously considered recording at least some of the tracks that went on Revolver at Stax in Memphis instead of Abbey Road. https://www.udiscovermusic.com/beatles-nearly-made-revolver-with-staxs-jim-stewart In the letter (dated May 7 1966) GH thanks Paul Drew for the records he sent and says he "digs" the Edwin Starr ones who he hasn't heard much about. He then asks if ES has made an LP. Coincidentally this happened at exactly the same week that Edwin Starr's first UK release on Polydor was issued. My question is, given that GH received Ric-Tic copies - maybe even demos since they were from a prominent radio DJ - how many Ric-Tic records were in circulation in the UK. I don't mean an exact number, rather were they obtainable at that time (early 1966) as imports. I know that Alex Harvey had already recorded his version of Agent 00 Soul in 1965 so obviously the whole Ric-Tic output was known to some degree.

Yup I'm changing my mind and going with this.

I'll try again: Why couldn't I explain that All the tears and the pain You feel today will tell you that Starting tomorrow oh you're gonna thank me baby